Accuracy in the Identification of Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals and the Peer-Review Process Across Disciplines

Abstract The first section of this paper examines the accuracy of the two major periodical directories, Ulrich's (UL) and Serials Directory (SD), in identifying scholarly and peer-reviewed journals. There were significant discrepancies found between SD and UL. A similar difference was also found between SD and journal-provided information, while UL closely reflected journal-provided information. The second section looks at the differences and similarities in the peer-review process across 18 disciplines. Seventy-four percent of the journals used editors and outside experts as reviewers. Single-blind peer review was used by 37% of the journals, 58% employed double-blind, and 5% made use of open reviews.

[1]  David L Schriger,et al.  Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers. , 2002, Annals of emergency medicine.

[2]  Publishing in the Journal Literature of Library and Information Science: A Survey of Manuscript Review Processes and Acceptance , 1996 .

[3]  M Rowan,et al.  Qualitative research articles: information for authors and peer reviewers. , 1997, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[4]  R. Horton,et al.  Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. , 2001, Lakartidningen.

[5]  J D Eldredge.  Identifying peer-reviewed journals in clinical medicine. , 1997, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[6]  R. Blank.  The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .

[7]  F. Godlee.  Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. , 2002, JAMA.

[8]  Ken M.C. Nweke.  Potentials of AGRIS for the Documentation of Agricultural Information in Nigeria , 1993 .

[9]  Stephen I. Abramowitz,et al.  Publish or Politic: Referee Bias in Manuscript Review1 , 1975 .

[10]  N. Black,et al.  Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. , 1998, JAMA.

[11]  B F Scharschmidt,et al.  Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation. , 1994, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[12]  J. Budd.  Higher Education Literature: Characteristics of Citation Patterns , 1990 .

[13]  Ching-chong Lai,et al.  Is It Worthwhile to Pay Referees , 2001 .

[14]  D. Shatz.  Is Peer Review Overrated , 1996 .

[15]  Tony Stankus,et al.  Which life science journals will constitute the locally sustainable core collection of the 1990s and which will become fax-access' only? Predictions based on citation and price patterns 1979-1989 , 1993 .

[16]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 2 , 1998 .

[17]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.

[18]  J. Farndon,et al.  A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. , 2000, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[19]  Richard Horton,et al.  Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge. , 2002, JAMA.

[20]  A. Weller.  Editorial peer review in US medical journals. , 1990, JAMA.

[21]  S. Goldbeck-Wood,et al.  What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? , 1998, BMJ.

[22]  Rex Dalton,et al.  Peers under pressure , 2001, Nature.

[23]  Joshua S. Gans,et al.  Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough) , 1998 .

[24]  D. Lindsey.  Ensuring Standards in Social Work Research , 1999 .

[25]  J D Eldredge.  Accuracy of indexing coverage information as reported by serials sources. , 1993, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[26]  N. O’Farrell.  Committee on Publication Ethics: the COPE report 1999. Guidelines on good publication practice. , 2000, Occupational and environmental medicine.

[27]  J F Waeckerle,et al.  Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. , 1998, JAMA.

[28]  G Brunier.  Peer review unmasked. , 1997, Le Journal CANNT = CANNT journal : the journal of the Canadian Association of Nephrology Nurses and Technicians.

[29]  Virgil L. P. Blake,et al.  The Perceived Prestige of Professional Journals, 1995: A Replication of the Kohl-Davis Study. , 1996 .

[30]  A. Link.  US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. , 1998, JAMA.

[31]  N. Black,et al.  What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? , 1998, JAMA.

[32]  L. Leslie.  Peer Review Practices of Mass Communication Scholarly Journals , 1990 .

[33]  P. Burnard,et al.  Reviewing the review process: towards good practice in the peer review of manuscripts submitted to nursing journals. , 2001, Nurse education today.

[34]  Guojie Li,et al.  From the Editor-in-Chief , 1995, Journal of Computer Science and Technology.

[35]  David M. Schoen,et al.  Building Psychology Collections Using Core Journal Lists , 1999 .

[36]  C Bingham,et al.  Enter the Web: an experiment in electronic research peer review , 1996, The Medical journal of Australia.